Resonance frequency analysis: Comparing two clinical instruments

Abstract

Background

Numerous studies indicate implants placed immediately after extraction or with minimally invasive procedures have excellent long-term success and survival rates. There is general agreement that implants must be stable after implant placement. This study evaluated implant stability changes from the time of implant placement to second stage (prior to restoration). Resonance frequency analysis (RFA) was determined for two commercially available units (Osstell, Osstell USA, Columbia, MD and Penguin, Penguin Integration Diagnostics, Sweden). The unit of measurement was the implant stability quotient (ISQ).

Materials and Methods

Prior to treatment patients were given medical and dental evaluations. Periapical and panogram radiographs were taken Computerized tomography images were taken for sites where adequate bone volume or quality were uncertain. Thirty patients were enrolled in this study (13 females, 17 males, mean age 73.4 years, (maximum age 90, minimum 47 year total of 38 implants were placed. One implant was lost. Computerized implant planning (Nobel Clinician) Nobel Biocar United States (Nobel Biocare, Yorba Linda, CA) was performed for all patients. Implants were placed utilizing a surgical guide. Using Resonance Frequency anal this study compared two RFA systems for determining implant stability (ISQ; Osstell and Penguin). Measurement pegs were screwed into the implants, and RFA measurements were taken at mesial, distal, lingual, and buccal implant surfaces. Stability measurements were taken at implant placement and at second stage. Clinical data and RFA measurements were recorded on data sheets. The average interval between first and second stages was 144.1 days (range 21.3)

Results

Average interval between implant placement and second stage was 141.1 days. One implant was lost prior to second stage. The results are based on 30 patients with 38 implants. At second stage, the RFA measures were slightly higher than first stage with a mean increase of 1.15, SE = 0.3, P–.067. The Penguin RFA values were marginally higher than Osstell (mean increase 1.10, SE = 0.64, P < .08).

Conclusions

RFA values between implant placement and second stage differed slightly between implant placement and second stage (P < 0.10). These differences were not clinically or statistically significant. At second stage, Penguin RFA values were slightly higher when compared with the Osstell device (P < 0.67). Bone quality appears to be an important factor when determining RFA readings. Type I bone had significantly higher readings when compared with other less dense bone types (P < .029) Resonance frequency evaluation data were similar for both instruments, indicating their reliability in determining implant stability. Neither instrument predicted implant failure. While subjective, Penguin was less cumbersome to utilize and the window revealing the readings was very easier to read. Further, the pegs are magnetized making insertion easy.

http://ift.tt/2tECMHT